Talk:Little Moreton Hall: Difference between revisions

	Little Moreton Hall is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 12, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 18, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Cheshire FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Historic sites FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Museums FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

1. The article needs to be expanded.
2. It should make use of sections.
3. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

Peter I. Vardy 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a discussion should happen about the advisability of placing an HTML comment in this article asking for an infox not to be added to it. I see no reason why this request should be, and invite interested people to discuss the matter on WT:CHES#Little Moreton Hall.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the comment was placed by the primary editor, Giano, who has written about 60 architecture-related articles, around 10 of which are featured articles, most having been showcased on the Main Page. All of the articles, even those that are not currently FAs, are laid out as if they are going to achieve that status - location and size of images is carefully balanced with text, sections are appropriately organized, and so on. Infoboxes, with their huge amount of wasted space, and restrictions on the use of the rest of the page, do not add to the artistry or the informational value of the page, and actively detract from it in many cases. Architecture isn't a subject that is particularly amenable to userboxes; compare to lichens or fungi, or complicated mathematical formulae, or even films. Giano has unfortunately had to have this discussion on several of the pages in recent months, and I believe he has tried to take pre-emptive action by adding this comment rather than having to have the same conversation 60-odd times. I hope this helps. Risker (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please would it be possible for you to take this discussion to the page I recommended?  DDStretch  (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy it over. Risker (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy discussion followed at Wikipedia talk:CHES#Little Moreton Hall

There is a brief mention of steel rods being inserted in the 19th century, but nothing I can see about the major 20th-century restoration. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add something then? Giano (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have many other things to be doing, so why don't you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page is now undergoing a needed overhaul, the editors concerned may find this useful File:Plan of Little Moreton Hall.jpg. It's a little feint, but better than nothing, and may give someone somes guidelines to draw a clearer plan. Giano (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't parse this sentence. What does it mean? "Access to the house is via a stone bridge across the moat and through a gate house in the south range, each of the two upper floors of which is jettied out over the floor beneath." --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think I figured it out. It was the juxtaposition of "jetty" and "moat", and the awkward construction of the latter clause that foxed me. I've rewritten it slightly and I think it is clearer now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has "a ginger bread house ...". Should that be gingerbread? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should indeed, and the quotation isn't quite right anyway, so I've fixed that too. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a valid redlink? He seems only to be known for that one book. I can't quickly find any good sources on him. Thoughts? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering exactly the same thing myself. I say no, let's get rid of the redlink. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No prejudice against creating this in the future should good sources become available. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the procedure for FAC so I will leave a few comments here. Please move them or delete.

Lede-

1. As a German speaker my prose is flawed by a tendency to start every sentence with a subsidary clause. I see this here. # German grammar Now fully restored, the house is.... then At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hall estate occupied.... and other examples

1. -08; the remainder was constructed in stages by successive generations of the family until around 1610. Surely this should be - 08. The construction continued until around 1610; successive generations of the family supervising further stages. Citation needed?

1. façades around three sides of a small cobbled courtyard A façade is a face of a building not a courtyard. Is façade the WP approved spelling of facade? Cobbled or cobble paved courtyard- the meaning of the former being ambiguous.

1. At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hal surely extent which occured in the mid-16th Better however to say The Little Moreton Hall estate which was at its greatest extent during the mid-16th century.... Is extent the best word to express the concept of largest? Now we move onto the the iron bloomery with its cornmill, orchards and gardens and water-powered hammers. because that is the effect of the word with. Citation needed? wlinks needed to water powered hammers, cornmill types of orchard

1. The gardens were abandoned until their 20th-century recreation. Recreation or re-creation? I am troubled by abandoned until. To abandon is final- were the gardens responsible for their own re-creation? were left in an abandoned state until the 20th-century, when they were re-created using published 17th century designs? Perhaps. Citation needed? --ClemRutter (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move your points to the FAC ClemRutter, and answer them there. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie McKenna appears to have been the senior listing officer for Cheshire at the time this book was written, so I assume it's authoritative. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is only because this such a wonderfully fascinating article that I am wanting to ask the meaning of "range" as it is used here. Is it simply the side of a building from a particular direction ("façade" being the front)? Maybe it is similar to "wing"? I have not found the word in Glossary_of_architecture, nor, I think, in wikt:range. Should it be there? The article is quite clear without me knowing exactly what the word means but some sort of link or note would be comforting. I've now struggled to get down my OED and it gives a meaning as "row of buildings or parts of buildings; or a continuous stretch of building". BTW, many thanks for all the work and for persevering through the FAC. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "range" is more or less synonymous with "wing". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since asking I have spotted this diff suggesting that the article is deliberately using the words somewhat differently. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a wing is built in one go so to speak, whereas a range is constructed in stages, as the east range was. So the house was built originally with an east wing, but it now has an east range. In the case of the south range, it would seem odd to me to consider it to be a south wing to the east wing. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am away from my books- but to me a range is a grouping of many individual building that have been connected together, where a wing will be integral to the building. The stables and kitchens may be in a range on the opposide of the courtyard, but the parlour or a library will be in the south wing. I will look for references in Pevsner and Brunskill when we are reunited.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Pevsner says: "It [Little Moreton Hall] is timber-framed throughout except for the mighty brick chimneybreasts of all three ranges ...". George Ponderevo (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous rendition "by her shadow hide ye what clothes shee weare" doesn't make any sense. The 1883 book Historic sites of Lancashire and Cheshire : a wayfarer's notes in the Palatine counties, historical, legendary, genealogical and descriptive (p. 446) by James Croston has "hede ye", i.e "heed" as in "see or perceive", which must surely be right. I've changed it.

Admittedly, Croston also gives "Then" instead of "Than" as the start of the second clause; presumably in error.

Steve Graham (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, these are the same thing. It should be ground floor, second floor, third floor. Why is it written this way??? Also, can we get a floor plan of the top floor? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is the American practice of describing floors. In England the first floor is above the ground floor. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two rooms on the upper floor, the Long Gallery and the Upper Porch Room, so a plan would add very little IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently fixed this article's infobox, which was not displaying. Another editor has now removed it, saying "it adds nothing anyway". That is patently false, as the infobox, in addition to providing a summary of key points for the benefit of our readers, causes the article to emit machine-readable metadata, such as is used by DBpedia, search engines, and, soon, Wikidata. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking above, the topic is not new. I added an infobox to the German subset and think it's a start to being helful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to death. Have you seen the topic above?[1] George Ponderevo (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a discussion from five years ago. It doesn't seem relevant to the point I made today. I see This discussion, too. Have you seen WP:OWN? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and I've even read it, unlike so many others apparently. The metadata was available for analysis via the invisible infobox, therefore I don't really see the validity of your point. If you want metadata then have metadata, but there's no need to add unsightly clutter just to have metadata. I have no objection to you restoring the infobox to the way it was earlier this evening on the other hand, invisible. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension; the so-called "invisible infobox", which was not an infobox at all, emitted no metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is certainly labouring under a misapprehension, but I think it's you. I reject utterly your position that it is necessary to introduce unsightly infoboxes simply to make metadata available. How many infoboxes emit metadata at present? Why is it not possible to emit metadata without an infobox being visible? Doesn't {{Persondata}} do that for instance? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent me. Your claim that "the metadata was available for analysis via the invisible infobox" is bogus. False. Untrue. I can only wonder why you said that, if it wasn't due to a misapprehension on your part. The metadata emitted by Persondata is a limited, Wikipedia-specific type that applies to people only; that emitted by our infoboxes uses a set of more feature-rich, international, open standards called microformats. There is consensus for the use of microformats on Wikipedia; we already emit millions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George, chasing a personally theory on a FA article seems a trifle foolish. When we got FA I checked my edits on the Android app, as well as Firefox on my laptop- it looked good on both. It now looks 'orrible on the smart phone. Please just roll it back. I had a similar problem with my tetile mills, so I just wrote {{Infobox mill building}} to do the job. Until we have a customised template- the existing one must do, it works for mobile phone users.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so now I'm foolish for arguing that metadata and presentation ought to be separate issues. Fair enough, I'm done here, but I'm rolling nothing back. If you want to wreck the article's presentation then you go right ahead, I won't stop you. I'll be disappointed, and likely won't ever work on a building article again, but I won't stop you. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would lead to a more productive discussion Pigsonthewing if you could back off from trying to bully me, intimidate me, or patronise me, as I've probably forgotten more about computing than you will likely ever know. Now please answer my question; how many infobox templates currently emit this metadata, and why could they not still do so while being invisible? After all, separating interface from implementation has long been regarded as a worthy goal in software development. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is often not helpful or sensible to make accusations against other editors, especially when one's own record is less than spotless. Instead of making massive visual changes to articles that are already at Featured Article status without prior discussion, and than being aggressively defensive if someone objects, then surely a better way forward would be to pose the following question: Is the change I am making a significant change that could affect this article's Featured Status? If it is (and visual appearence seems an integral part of this), then perhaps some other solution is required? I speak as someone who is usually in favour of infoboxes, but not at the expense of endangering an article's status, which in this case, I think it would. In any case,I would not be unwise enough to do this without prior discussion, here: you can be bold, but there is a fine line to be drawn between being bold and being reckless.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked long and hard on this, even had to pretty much rewrite the timber roof truss article to address one issue, and I consulted with Giano throughout the rewrite, who was against an infobox, and I respected his wishes. And my reward is to see the article now trashed by some metadata obsessive on a mission? No wonder Wikipidia is haemorrhaging active editors. And to have WP;OWN thrown in my face as well just takes the biscuit. About time Wikipedia woke up to the reality of what's going on here. George Ponderevo (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article looked fine without the infobox, and like that deserves its Featured Status. However, with the infobox added, it looks worse to my mind, and, although I would not wish it to be put to the test, it could change its status downwards. I think in the case of articles that are already at Featured Status, the best approach is to make minimal changes to add functionality, disturbing as little as possible: adding an infobox when the editors who got the article to Featured Status worked hard and long to do that without an infobox, seems to be regressive. Surely there is a different solution? Would it not be better to spend time solely and practically finding that solution?  DDStretch  (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In truth I've got no strong feelings either for against infoboxes, and to be honest I'd love to see a great deal more consistency in formatting between Wikipedia articles, but then i don't rule the world. What I do think is important though is that the article's contributors are given appropriate respect, not dissed as ignoramuses who can't tell a template from a hole in the ground, or as impediments to some kind of metadata business opportunity. George Ponderevo (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If - and the assertion is unproven - the addition of an infobox would invalidate the FA status of the article, then either the FA process needs to catch up with the rest of Wikipedia; or we need to stop appearing to be beholden to something so broken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The point is not just that, and I suggest that you know that it isn't. The point is that making large changes to articles that are already at Featured Article status that affect the visual appearence is not wise, and you have been around enough, and been blocked enough to have had adequate experience of that in the past. Instead, a more sensitive approach would be to try to accomplish what you want to do with making as small a set of changes as possible that do not disrupt the visual appearence of the article, since that was one of the components used to award the FA status in the first place. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and you cannot be allowed to make radical edits in order to make the point that "the FA process needs to catch up with the rest of Wikipedia; or we need to stop appearing to be beholden to something so broken." So, the issue is again: how can you add what you want to add by making as few changes to the visual appearence of this article? If you are really interested in adding functionality to this and other articles, rather than trying to make a point, you should be thinking about this problem with the aim of solely solving it in as disruptive manner as possible rather than making this situation move closer and closer to a situation where administrator action may be required, surely?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is based on a premise of disruption; and one of "making radical edits in order to make a point". Both premises are false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it was not, but if you think it was, I apologize for giving you that interpretation. It was intended to point out how it may well appear to others. And I note that, once again, you have ducked the issue of trying to solve the problem of adding the information in a way which makes as little disruption as possible to an already well-laid-out article. It is that last point that makes me more sad than angry at your latest contribution to this discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your premise is one of disruption. Once again, that premise is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad that you are spending time making these personal comments rather than using it productively to find a solution that does not disturb the appearence of the article.I know that you really want to add information to the article, but there are different ways of doing that. It is not using a premise of disruption to point out that the way you used made the visual appearence worse than it was before.Now, can I suggest we drop this, and you work on adding the information in ways suggested above that do not involve making great changes to the visual appearence that others think diminishes its appearence?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Only just seen this] My comments - unlike yours, oddly - are not personal. I've talked of the premise in the substance of your comments, not about you personally. Your new comment about the visual appearance is indeed not using a premise of disruption; but it is an assertion of a mere personal preference as a fact; and is preceded by a false premise of disturbance. Like your later comments, you fail to address here the points I made in my initial comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have made accusations against another editor, who objected to you: you said he was being personally involved via WP:OWN. This was prior to my own entry to the discussion, and you should note that I started by making a comment about personal statements by yourself were unwise. Your comment about ownership is a personal statement. That having been made, I naturally assumed that you felt it was acceptable (though unwise) for personal statements to be made. You cannot now complain when they are. In fact, if any accusation similar to WP:OWN is to be made, a cursory investigation of issues surrounding all this shows that you have many similar issues to that of ownership as well. So, let us stop this silliness, because it adds nothing to what we are supposed to be doing. Please re-start the discussion, because your hitherto aggressive statements have just made it more difficult for you to convince us of what you would like us to do. I would have expected you to have had more sense than to make editors you wish to convince, irritated by your own initiation of personal comments. Let us all try to calm down by starting again.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegations about my behaviour are false. You may stop your silliness whenever you choose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In common with all architectural and cultural pages, this page has no need of an info box. If the information is not clearly set out in the lead, then the page needs re-writing to ensure that it is. In this case, the lead contains all necessary information. If coordinates must be included (are we planning to bomb it?) they can be stuck neatly out of the way at the top or bottom of the page. Reducing a lead image of a large and splendid house to the size of a dolls’ house is a ludicrous action – just what is it supposed to achieve other than instantly gratifying some retard with the attention span of a gnat? This constant interference by people wandering in off the street and plonking what looks like an incongruous, cheap Pokémon card on a thoughtfully laid out page, is nothing short of vandalism. It’s lovely that children are encouraged to look at Wikipedia, let’s go a step further and encourage them to read it too. Giano (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anyone "wandering in off the street" to edit this article, but if they do, it is Wikipedia policy that they be welcomed. It's generally not considered acceptable to refer to editors or readers using such a derogatory term as you do, particularly once one knows what it means, so I invite you to find out, assuming you do not, and to remove it. False accusations of vandalism are equally frowned upon. Perhaps you might also read the infobox's documentation before issuing judgement on it; there you will see that its image can be resized. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I thought I had made myself perfectly clear; however, let me put it simply - Andy/Piggy (whatever the name is) has wondered in off the street. You have had nothing to do with this page; it is entirely the hard work of others. There is nothing derogatory about the truth - it's a simple fact. It's now an FA (a new one, not even an old one) you have missed the boat. Now I suggest you go away and finds a spot where your input is more welcome. Is that clear enough for you? Giano (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely clear; utterly against our core polices; and thus easy to ignore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no policy mandating infoboxes, as you well know Andy. This one considerably reduced the size of the lead picture, had very little useful information, and removed the informative caption. Sometimes infoboxes make sense, sometimes they don't, as here. If you want the metadata, put it out of sight, or at least in a single bar horizontal template at the bottom. Same time next week? You choose where. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tilting at windmills again, John. And economical with the truth, again. Here's the infobox, with the caption, yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Moreton_Hall&oldid=537792524 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your last version. But is the extra information in the infobox worth the visual disruption? Clearly not. All the "cultural heritage" infoboxes have bad fields, and are very typically badly filled out, so that they are just not worth cramping the lead pic for. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore him John and he'll go away. He's just trolling because he knows (as do we all) that info-boxes are left to the principal editors discretion, and on these sort of pages that is rarely. My position as a principal editor of this page has long been supplanted, but that view still seems to the the concensus of the main editors. On mathematical and scientific pages there may be a case for the info-box (I would not presume to interfere on pages where I know little and have contributed nothing of value), but there is no case here. Giano (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the challenge I made the last time someone asserted the "principal editor" (however that is measured) canard: Go to a page like WP:VPP and try to get at adopted as a policy. Such argument from authority is of no merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is of no merit is editors such as yourself, entirely ignorant of the subject, insisting that this article must be formatted according to their personal preferences. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise any "visual disruption". You appear to be arguing that your personal aesthetic preferences are superior to others'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see it then clearly my personal aesthetic preferences are indeed superior, at least to yours. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{indent)I am a great fan of infoboxes, and have added them to (literally) hundreds of church articles, where I think they give added value. BUT in the case of this article, IMO the suggested infobox adds nothing, and actually detracts from the impact of the article. Let's leave it as it was accepted by the FA reviewers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refuted the bogus assertion that the infobox "adds nothing" in my opening comment in this section. FA reviewers have made clear that they do not consider infoboxes, pro or con, in their deliberations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that the only way you can add metadata to articles is by adding an infobox, then that is clearly a design fault of your own. Please go away and liberate your desired metadata from such a silly restriction so that you can accommodate more articles. Until then, I contend that the articles stays with NO added infobox. This is your problem, not the article's!  DDStretch  (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could address the points I made in that opening comment, rather than what you'd apparently like to believe I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop evading this issue, and please answer this basic question: Can you or can you not add metadata to an article without adding an infobox? 01:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could address the points I made... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know the answer to Ddstretch's question, Andy. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Start

It may better to make a break here, because the preceding main section seems to have reached an impasse and there is no possibility that any further progress can be made in that direction. Andy Mabbett's points are made on the apparent assumption that you cannot do what you want to do without adding an infobox. I am merely asking him whether this is true or false. This is basic information required to begin to re-start this debate without all the aggressive drama that has been apparent so far. Now, in order to proceed, he needs to give us complete information, and since it is he who is advocating a change, it seems a sensible strategy for him to accommodate reasonable questions we ask of him ("the burden of proof for those who propose a change rests with those who make the proposition"). It is a reasonable question to ask him whether adding an infobox is the only way of achieving what he wants to achieve. He obviously is committed to adding this metadata to articles, so it is in his interest to accommodate this reasonable question, because then he has a chance of getting us on his side in some way. The amount of time he has spent arguing this point could have been used by him to add metadata to more articles. So, please, asking him directly: Could you answer this question: Is using an infobox the only way you can add metadata to an article?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could address the points I made... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could answer that straightforward question. I doubt that the debate can continue while some of us are ignorant about the details of this matter - and would like to be informed about it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also now note that we have not been given full information surrounding this. This comment by myself hopefully supplies that missing information: On 11th February, the following proposal to delete the invisible infobox was made by Andy Mabbett. If you wish to comment, you may do so there: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Template:Infobox_invisible . Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]